Re: [Leica] Mastery of any technique

[john <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

Erwin Puts wrote:
> 
> A photographer who deploys the fully chemical imaging chain to produce
> his/her endresult, is using a long string of techniques and even
> technologies. To master any of these techniques, from exposure and
> development matching, choosing film and paper, selecting chemicals, and
> employing expert knowlegde for detail rendition, range of tonal scale,
> he/she needs to know basic theory and a number of hard won rukes, based on
> practical experience. That is what we call the craft and even theory of
> photography. Whatever the result in comparison to another technology,
> mastering this chain is gratifying in itself and up till now the results are
> yet unsurpassed and even when the moment arrives that a different technique
> will produce equal or better results, this specific result is a unique
> interpretation of or expression about reality. In music analogy: a
> synthesizer may well emulate a flute or a violin within the range of
> auditory recognition, making the sounds indistinguishable for the listener,
> does that mean that the craft or art of plying the violin is obsolete or no
> longer worth pursuing?
> So whatever the perceiced, interpreted or measured image quality of a
> digital print and a chemical print and whatever the means by which this
> result has been generated, any mix of imaging technologies has its own
> unique value.
> It would be nice if the proponents of the digital print would try to
> discuss the digital-chemical print technology as two different, but valid
> ways of recording and representing an image, trying to find the specific
> qualities of both and the pros and cons of both techniques in a series of
> applications.
> Now that they prefer to define the comparison as an old (obsolete) versus
> new technology and see the users of the chemical technology as backward
> people who cling desperately to hopelessly outdated technology and who
> refuse to see the light of the future, they have cast the discussion in a
> fruitless mold.
> The technique of  scanning of negatives, manipulating the digital file with
> Photoshop and printing the files is a craft in itself, that asks for far
> more expertise and experience that most even dare to hope. As far as mastery
> of any technique goes, (and the few really good books about the employment
> of Photoshop stress the fact that it is a very steep and long learning
> curve), the digital one is as exacting and precise as the chemical one.
> The best books I know about Photoshop (I am teaching Photoshop courses for 5
> years now, so I feel entitled to have an opinion), all imply that to learn
> Photoshop is as exacting and time consuming as any difficult technique and
> ask for skills that relate to the printing industry that many photographers
> and other users of Photoshop cannot dream of.
> These writers feel that using Photoshop in its image manipulation
> possibilities directed to digital output,  is closely related to the crafts
> required in the printing industry.
> These crafts are not easily acquired and demand a different approach and
> mindset that when making a print in the wet darkroom.
> I truly would hope that we can lift the discussion of this in itself
> exciting topic,to a level where we can appreciate the relative merits of the
> results and the different skill sets required.
> 
> Erwin
I admit freely to not reading every post of the hundreds I get from the Leica
Users Group, but I can recall few if any posts here that denigrate anyone
using silver based technology.  Certainly, the vast majority of those talking
about digital seem  to use and enjoy both. I think your seeing a dichotomy
where none exists. 
John Shick